Before setting up Cetas Kinetic, I worked for 9 years within a multi-agency team for children and young people looked after. When I started, I worked as a research officer, at the time, many authorities didn't’t know where their young people were in terms of their educational progress. After a few years, I was given the role of personal education plan (PEP) coordinator, one of the first dedicated posts in the country. During my time in the role, I was very active in both local and national committees, trying to influence the ways in which we could improve the outcomes for children and young people looked after. This PowerPoint presentation was the one presented at the London network for Virtual School Heads and their schools. It describes the piloting of a Pan-London approach to the PEP form and process. The idea behind this was an attempt to try and ensure that every young person in care, no matter what authority they were placed in, would get the same excellent level of intervention and support via the PEP. Katie Rishi

1. Pan London PEP Pilot
Katie Rishi
PEP Coordinator MAT CLA

2. Katie Rishi
Before setting up Cetas Kinetic, I worked for 9 years within a multi-agency team for children and
young people looked after. When I started, I worked as a research officer, at the time, many
authorities didn't’t know where their young people were in terms of their educational progress.
After a few years, I was given the role of personal education plan (PEP) coordinator, one of the
first dedicated posts in the country. During my time in the role, I was very active in both local and
national committees, trying to influence the ways in which we could improve the outcomes for
children and young people looked after.
This PowerPoint presentation was the one presented at the London network for Virtual School Heads
and their schools. It describes the piloting of a Pan-London approach to the PEP form and
process. The idea behind this was an attempt to try and ensure that every young person in care,
no matter what authority they were placed in, would get the same excellent level of intervention
and support via the PEP.
If anyone has any questions, then please do not hesitate to get in touch on the details below.
Katie Rishi - Training Director
Cetas Kinetic LTD
www.cetas-kinetic.com
k.rishi@cetas-kinetic.com
02083975556

3. Overview
l Who we are and what
we have been doing
l Pilot and evaluation
l Main findings
l What next?

4. VSH sub group:
Supporting children out of authority
l Westminster, Hounslow, Lambeth, Tower
Hamlets, Barnet, Greenwich, Sutton,
Hillingdon & Richmond
l Regular meetings since Oct 07
l Share good ideas and good practice
l Examine, discuss and develop existing
strategies to support children out of authority
l Out of authority notification
l Pan London PEP

5. Why a new PEP Form?
l Support the work of the Virtual School Head
l Different PEPs from each authority confusing
l Professionals and young people are transient
l Clarifies roles and responsibilities
l Ensures the PEP is an effective tool for
promoting the educational achievements of
children in care

6. Designing the New Form
l Collected PEPs from range of authorities
both in and out of London
l Decisions about layout and process
l Numerous meetings perfecting each section
l Trial runs for usability – return results to
working party
l Process took 4 months

7. The New Form
l Section 1 – Young Persons general
information, completed by social worker
l Section 2 – School information and current
educational status, completed by the DT
l Section 3 – Young persons view, completed
by young person
l Section 4 – The Meeting

8. Reasons for design
l Only one version of the form
l It included early years
l It should be able to accommodate the needs of CDT
l It can accommodate those young people out of mainstream
school settings
l Agreed that sections 1-3 should be completed
BEFORE the meeting takes place
l Electronic so should be easy to complete
l Electronic versions of young persons views attached
l Guidance on the front as to who does what and why

9. Pilot Plan
l Range of Authorities involved
l Variation of size and systems
l Each of the authorities to carry out 10 PEPs
l Feedback from
l Social Workers
l Designated Teachers
l Young People
l Pilot Coordinators involved in project

10. Evaluation
l 62 PEPs carried out using new
form
l 40 Designated teachers / school
staff
l 23 social workers
l Newly qualified
l Extensive experience
l Overseas social workers
l Telephone interviews with all
l Feedback forum – 1st July
l Young Persons feedback
l Various formats

11. Outcomes – The Form
l Positives
l Concept positively received
l Felt layout was easy to follow
l Felt roles clearly outlined – help to improve ownership
l YP forms help facilitate discussion
l More it was used the easier it became, rolling document
l Concerns
l Electronic format – didn’t always work due to different
versions of Word, use of macros, need to add targets etc.
l Not all schools have access to emails
l Jury out as to whether we need more than one form.
School staff more inclined to comment about this.

12. Outcomes – The Process
l Positives
l Felt that sending form before meeting really helpful, meant
expectation on both DT and SW for information
l Reduced the amount of information needing to be collated
after the meeting
l Allowed for thinking to be done about YP and targets
before meeting
l Meant YP could be consulted before meeting if not coming.
l Concerns
l Increase of administrative duties

13. Outcomes – Training Needs
l A number of SW and DT commented on training needs
l Not covered as part of SW professional training
l SW not always confident in challenging schools
l SW felt schools were in a powerful position, reliant on good
schools supporting good targets
l DT didn’t always feel SW understood the demands on their
resources and time
l DT didn’t always appreciate the specialist needs of some
children in care.
l Felt there could be a universal training programme, although
mixed opinions about whether SW and DT to join up to do,
perhaps part overlap.

14. Outcomes – Link to ICS & VSH
l Aware of links to ICS
l Currently ICS are in the process of designing a
standard form – link in our findings
l Nationwide and not “London-centric”
l Supporting VSH role
l We understand the need for good information
l Want a form that information can be extracted
from

15. Summary Points
l Positive about universal form across authorities
l Separate section helped to highlight roles and
ownership
l Clearly laid out
l Need to move towards an electronic format and
integration onto ICS to minimise duplication
l Allowing YP to feed into PEP process even if not at
meeting

16. What Next?
l Integration with ICS
l Training needs – link to other VSH group
l Central place for template information
l PEP form, Leaflets & Training materials
l Needs of foster carers
l Feedback Forum – 1st July
l Final Report – before the end of summer
term